Hydrali Kalathinkal (Ali K.H.) vs Narayanan Namboodiri
2022 Latest Caselaw 5278 Ker

OP(C) No.837/2022
                                    -1-



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
       TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 27TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                           OP(C) NO. 837 OF 2022
      AGAINST THE EP NO.96/2021 IN OS 270/2020 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT,
                     OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
PETITIONER/S:

            HYDRALI KALATHINKAL (ALI K.H.)
            AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. MUHEMMED ALI,
            AKALUR AMSOM DESOM,
            LAKKIDI PERUR I VILLAGE,
            OTTAPALAM TALUK,
            PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 691101
            BY ADV BABU JOSEPH PYNADATH


RESPONDENT/S:

            NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI
            AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI
            PUZHANGAPARAMBU MANA,
            ANTHIKAD P.O., PADIYAM VILLAGE,
            MANGATTUKARA DESOM,
            THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680641
      THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.05.2022, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) No.837/2022
                                   -2-




                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the first judgment debtor in E.P No.96/2021

arising out of O.S No.270/2020 pending before the Munsiff's

Court, Ottapalam. The petitioner herein filed this petition

seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a direction to the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam to stay all the proceedings in Exhibit P4;

(ii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on

admission.

3. The plaintiff in O.S No.270/2020 on the file of the

Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam had filed suit for mandatory

injunction directing the petitioner herein who is the first

defendant therein to vacate the plaint schedule premises. As on

30.01.2021, decree was passed and thereby, the petitioner was

directed to surrender vacant possession of plaint schedule

rooms to the plaintiff within a period of one month from OP(C) No.837/2022

30.01.2021 and on failure, the plaintiff was given liberty to

execute the decree through the process of court. Thereafter, the

petitioner herein failed to surrender the vacant possession of

the building, and accordingly, the plaintiff filed E.P No. 96/2021.

4. It is discernible from Ext.P6, the proceedings before

the execution court that, as on 26.11.2021, the petitioner

appeared before the execution court. It is relevant to note that

though the decree was passed as early on 30.01.2021, the

petitioner herein not filed any appeal challenging the decree or

any petition to set aside the ex parte decree till this date even

after appearing before the execution court on 26.11.2021, as

borne out from records and as submitted by the learned counsel

for the petitioner. That shows that the petitioner has no

grievance in relation to the decree put in execution.

5. It is worthwhile to note further that as per the

delivery order dated 22.03.2022, the Munsiff directed delivery of

plaint schedule rooms by 30.03.2022, and when the Amin visited

the rooms, it was noticed that the rooms stand locked. What

happened thereafter is a matter not borne out from the records. OP(C) No.837/2022

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, delivery not

effected so far.

6. To be on the crux of this matter, it is crystal clear that

a legally passed decree on 30.01.2021 has been put in execution

by the decree holder and when delivery was ordered to be

effected on 30.03.2022 the petitioner has filed this original

petition on 09.05.2022. As I already pointed out, no challenge

raised in so far as the decree put in execution. In view of the

matter, the petitioner failed to raise any legally sustainable

contentions and therefore, none of the reliefs sought for herein

above, can be granted. Therefore, the original petition is found

to be meritless and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

7. It is specifically ordered that the execution court can

go with the delivery of the rooms as per law.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this petition to

the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam for information.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

JS OP(C) No.837/2022

APPENDIX

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.S NO.270/2020 OF MUNSIFF 'S COURT, OTTAPPALAM DTD 22.09.2020

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DTD 30.01.2021 IN OS NO.270/2020 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPPALAM

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 30.01.2021 IN OS NO.270/2020 MUNSIFF'S COURT OTTAPPALAM

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF EP NO.96/2021 IN OS NO.270/2020 DTD 22.07.2021 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT -P4

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN EP NO.96/2021 IN OS NO.270/2020 DTD 27.11.2021.